Why do tax payers have to fund LGBTQ organizations?

From the Ottawa Citizen: LGBTQ+ charities and non-profits face increasing financial struggle. Fae Johnstone the executive director of Queer Momentum:

We need to support the organizations making equality real. 

Ah, no we don't. I don't want to give any more of my tax dollars to LGBTQ ideology. Canadians already give LGBTQ millions.

LGBTQ+ charities and non-profits deliver critical services and programs to the most vulnerable queer people. In Ottawa and across Canada, they're facing the perfect storm: economic precarity, government belt-tightening and corporations rescinding financial support, all made worse by a social and political climate increasingly hostile to LGBTQ+ acceptance. 

Cry me a river. 

If they want more money to fund their ideology let them fundraise for it. They've already received enough from the taxpayer. Kind Space received $1,077,389 in the past five years from government. Ten Oaks received $334,019. And Queer Momentum has received $395,325 for a total of almost $2 million dollars.

One of the commenters on this article made some excellent points as to why we do not need to fund these charities:

Sexual-identity-based charities rest on the flawed premise that people require different forms of support because of who they are, rather than because of what they are experiencing. Homelessness, depression, addiction, trauma, and poverty are sadly universal human conditions in our society. They do not become categorically different when experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals. Creating parallel, identity-filtered charities ultimately fragments service delivery, duplicates infrastructure, and diverts what is already scarce funding from more deserving outcome-driven programs that serve far more people.

In a time where Canadians have few and few dollars to give to charities, part thanks to our Liberal government running out of other peoples money, prioritizing identity over demonstrated need and measurable effectiveness is just plain inefficient and worse yet, exclusionary. It also risks turning charitable work into ideological signaling rather than practical problem-solving. Universal challenges are best addressed through inclusive needs-based institutions that treat people equally and allocate resources based on severity and impact. Compassion scales when it is universal and outcome-focused; it weakens when it is segmented by identity. Charity should reduce suffering, not organize it along political or social classifications.

Funding abortion overseas - #notmyprimeminister

Theresa Winchester sent this letter to Justin Trudeau. I suggest we all send him our own letter @JustinTrudeau justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

Why must I as a Canadian taxpayer fund abortion in Canada?  Oh, let's extend that.  Why must I as a Canadian taxpayer fund abortion in the whole world?

Like the early feminists, I can not condone killing children in any stage of their lives which has now become the acceptable "choice" of killing girl babies in the womb simply because they are female.  Your claim to be a feminist is as fallacious as so many other of your claims.  I was a feminist before you were conceived and hearing you say that you are a feminist makes my skin crawl. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444050/snl-susan-b-anthony-early-feminists-opposed-abortion

Mr. Prime Minister, please educate yourself.  If you knew how unborn children were killed in the womb, you might have some understanding of the horror that is abortion.  If you understood that the unborn child who is a surprise or inconvenient or might be challenged develops in the womb day by day exactly the same as those who are wanted, you might have some understanding from the child's point of view.  If you knew about the number of women who sincerely regret their abortion every single day of their remaining lives, you might have a glimmer about the disservice that ready, free and unrestricted access to abortion is to women.  But then again, to understand anything about abortion, you would have to research and contemplate something other than the noisy people who scream "it's a woman's choice" while ignoring the fact that a human life ends with every abortion.  You only hear one voice, Mr Prime Minister, the one that agrees with your uneducated and firmly closed opinion.  Like so many other pro-choice people, you have never looked beyond the 10 second sound byte.  

I challenge you, Mr Prime Minister, while knowing full well that you will NEVER do it.  I challenge you, on the day of the National March for Life, May 11 2017, to have a look at the numbers of Canadians who totally disagree with your one voice.  I challenge you, on that day, to actually talk to some of them -- the idea of you doing that actually brings on a giggle!  The marchers are not religious whack jobs.  They are not attempting to control Canadian women and put them back barefoot into the kitchen.  They are not old white guys.  They are attempting to save the lives of Canadian human beings who have not yet been born but had no choice in being conceived and will have no choice in being terminated.  Even as I type this, I laugh; you don't have what it takes to do anything except what you have always done.  

Mr Prime Minister, some day when the world rights itself, and it will, you will be remembered in the same way that we now view the former pro-slavery leaders of countries.  

Please do not respond to my email with a platitude about valuing the input of all Canadians.  It is perfectly obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse that you value only those opinions that match with your own view of the world.  

#notmyprimeminister#notmytaxdollars

Theresa Winchester